Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: implementation of dynamic ATU entries

[netdev@kapio-technology.com]

On 2023-01-31 19:56, Simon Horman wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/mv88e6xxx/chip.c
>> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
>>  #include "ptp.h"
>>  #include "serdes.h"
>>  #include "smi.h"
>> +#include "switchdev.h"
>> 
>>  static void assert_reg_lock(struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip)
>>  {
>> @@ -2726,18 +2727,25 @@ static int mv88e6xxx_port_fdb_add(struct 
>> dsa_switch *ds, int port,
>>  				  const unsigned char *addr, u16 vid,
>>  				  u16 fdb_flags, struct dsa_db db)
>>  {
>> +	bool is_dynamic = !!(fdb_flags & DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC);
>>  	struct mv88e6xxx_chip *chip = ds->priv;
>> +	u8 state;
>>  	int err;
>> 
>> -	/* Ignore entries with flags set */
>> -	if (fdb_flags)
>> -		return 0;
>> +	state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_STATIC;
>> +	if (is_dynamic)
>> +		state = MV88E6XXX_G1_ATU_DATA_STATE_UC_AGE_7_NEWEST;
> 
> What if flags other than DSA_FDB_FLAG_DYNAMIC are set (in future)?

They will have to be caught and handled here if there is support for it, 
e.g. something like...

else if (someflag)
         dosomething();

For now only one flag will actually be set and they are mutually 
exclusive, as they will not make sense together with the potential flags 
I know, but that can change at some time of course.

> 
>> +	else
>> +		if (fdb_flags)
> 
> nit: else if (fdb_flags)
> 
>> +			return 0;
>> 
> 
> ...